We are anonymous, we are legion

Surveillance Stories: Optimizing rights and governance

Admin — 2018-10-31T01:39:56Z

Sunil Abraham gave a talk at the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore on October 16, 2018. Sunil used a series of stories to explain how surveillance works and fails in the context of theft, murder, insider trading, terrorism, demonetization and encounter killings.

These stories were used to explore multiple technical solutions for solving the “surveillance optimization problem”. Policy makers have to simultaneously maximize various rights — the right to privacy, the right to transparency, the right to free speech — and uphold the imperatives of the nation state: national security, law enforcement and effective governance.

Two decades ago, Lawrence Lessig introduced a socioeconomic theory of regulation called the ‘pathetic dot theory’, which discusses how individuals in a society are regulated by four forces — law, code or technical infrastructure, market and social norms. The talk will explore how these four regulatory options contribute to solving the surveillance optimization problem.

This was published on the website of National Centre for Biological Sciences

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/surveillance-stories-optimizing-rights-and-governance

Surveillance rises, privacy retreats

praskrishna — 2015-05-02T06:43:33Z

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden have, at considerable personal cost, revealed how surveillance has eroded the private space in a world driven by digital technology.

The article was published in the Business Standard on April 12, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

In India, the extent of surveillance became evident after Union human resource development minister Smriti Irani walked into the trial room of a FabIndia outlet in Goa last week, only to discover closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras pointed towards the trial room. The country woke up to the porous divide between privacy and surveillance.

Now, senior officials of FabIndia find themselves embroiled in a case of voyeurism and seven of them have taken interim anticipatory bail from a district court. They claim the CCTV cameras were in the retail area, not the trial room.

The FabIndia incident might have blown the lid on how flimsily our privacy is protected but there is no doubt that India is slowly but surely moving towards a surveillance regime, both in the private and the public spheres.

“After the Snowden episode, there are only two kinds of nations: Ones that know they are being watched, and others that don’t,” said Pavan Duggal, an advocate at the Supreme Court of India.

Despite the surge in surveillance, there are hardly any specific laws governing this.

A few laws
In 2000, India enacted the Information Technology Act, primarily to bring e-commerce under legal framework. After the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008, the Act was amended, to give the government sweeping powers for mass surveillance.

In the context of private surveillance, the 2008 amendment added two definitions: (a) communication device; (b) intermediary.

A communication device, according to the law, means cell phones, personal digital assistance, or a combination of both or any other device used to communicate, send or transmit any text, video, audio, or image. An intermediary was defined as any person who, on behalf of another person, stores or transmits message or provides any service with respect to that message.

Rules regarding CCTV surveillance are governed by the IT Act, 2008, as CCTVs are considered to be communication devices, with computerised memory. However, the laws in relation to a communication device and intermediary deal mostly with third-party data sharing.

“Article 21 of the Constitution guards the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right. We do not have an explicit Act in this regard, but Section 43A of the IT Act, 2000, along with the IT Rules, 2011, protects data privacy in India,” said Prashant Mali, a cyber law and cyber security lawyer.

There were no amendments of the laws governing CCTVs.

However, Section 66E of the IT Act, states: “Whoever, intentionally or knowingly, captures, publishes or transmits, the image of a private area of any person, without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to three years, or with a fine not exceeding Rs 2 lakh, or both, with explanation.”

“The IT Act is not a privacy enabling law. Hence, the challenges to privacy in surveillance are not fully addressed in it,” said Duggal.

Internationally, there are more stringent laws governing CCTV cameras. For example, in the UK, there is a prescribed code. A person filmed by a surveillance camera can seek the footage. In the US, too, there are state-specific laws which prohibit the unauthorised installation or use of cameras in private places, like restrooms and trial rooms.

“Privacy laws must be compliant with international practices. Laws governing CCTVs should be more comprehensive. It should not be specific to voyeurism,” said Sunil Abraham, the executive director of Bengaluru-based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society.

The government has been working on a Privacy (Protection) Bill, which provides safeguards on personal data of individuals and sets conditions under which surveillance is allowed. It is expected that the Bill will lead to the creation of the offices of privacy commissioner and data protection commissioner. However, it is mostly silent on laws governing CCTV usage.

“In India, the concern over enacting privacy laws, implementing them and our understanding of privacy are low, compared to the global context. The Privacy Protection Bill, 2013 is pending before Parliament. When this gets enacted, our laws would be at par with those in the West,” said Mali. “But doubts remain about their implementation.”

Government surveillance
Amendments to the IT Act in 2008 gave the government wide powers of interception, encryption and blocking. The amendment introduced Section 66A, which made sending “offensive” messages through a computer or any other communication device, such as a cell phone or a tablet, a punishable offense.

The Supreme Court recently struck down the provision as infringing the constitutional right of freedom of speech.

“Every nation is under the classical dilemma to balance national security with privacy and freedom of expression. Always, when there is a conflict between the two, national security wins hands down. However, apart from international consensus, we need customise national solutions,” said Duggal.

Today, some of the biggest government projects based on the powers vested to it under the IT Act. It has enabled the progression of surveillance procedures like the Central Monitoring System (CMS) and National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid), enabled through information on Aadhar card or unique identification number.

The CMS gives the government access to records of any mobile to landline calls, to read private emails, texts, and even browsing history through telecom operators. Natgrid could make the information available to nearly 11 central agencies.

“It is reported that the CMS can monitor close to 900 million people at one go. There is neither confirmation nor denial from the government,” said Duggal. However, compared to the US and China, that practice blanket surveillance, India is still considered a low-surveillance category nation.

“India is still low on surveillance. In India, we have targeted surveillance. At any given point in time, less than 200,000 phone calls are being intercepted. Not more than a couple of lakh of surveillance orders are given by both state and central governments,” said Abraham.

Surely, with so many surveillance devices around, it is a closely watched world like never before.

SALIENT FEATURES ON PRIVACY IN THE IT ACT, 2008

Communication Device: Cell phones, personal digital assistance, or combination of both or any other device used to communicate, send or transmit any text, video, audio, or image
Intermediary: Any person, who on behalf of another person, stores or transmits messages or provides any service
Sections 66A to 66F: Added to Section 66, prescribing punishment for offences such as sending obscene messages, identity theft, cheating by impersonation using computer resources, violation of privacy and cyber terrorism
Section 69: Amended to give power to the state to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource
Sections 69A and B: These grant power to the state to issue directions for blocking public access of any information through any computer resource and to authorise to monitor and collect traffic data or information through any computer resource for cyber security.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-namrata-acharya-april-12-2015-surveillance-rises-privacy-retreats

Surveillance Project

sunil — 2016-04-05T15:21:27Z

The Aadhaar project’s technological design and architecture is an unmitigated disaster and no amount of legal fixes in the Act will make it any better.

The article will be published in Frontline, April 15, 2016 print edition.

Zero. The probability of some evil actor breaking into the central store of authentication factors (such as keys and passwords) for the Internet. Why? That is because no such store exists. And, what is the probability of someone evil breaking into the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)? Greater than zero. How do we know this? One, the central store exists and two, the Aadhaar Bill lists breaking into this central store as an offence. Needless to say, it would be redundant to have a law that criminalises a technological impossibility. What is the consequence of someone breaking into the central store? Remember, biometrics is just a fancy word for non-consensual and covert identification technology. High-resolution cameras can capture fingerprints and iris information from a distance.

In other words, on March 16, when Parliament passed the Bill, it was as if Indian lawmakers wrote an open letter to criminals and foreign states saying, “We are going to collect data to non-consensually identify all Indians and we are going to store it in a central repository. Come and get it!” Once again, how do I know that the CIDR will be compromised at some date in the future? How can I make that policy prediction with no evidence to back it up? To quote Sherlock Holmes, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” If a back door to the CIDR exists for the government, then the very same back door can be used by an enemy within or from outside. In other words, the principle of decentralisation in cybersecurity does not require repeated experimental confirmation across markets and technologies.

Zero. The chances that you can fix with the law what you have broken with poor technological choices and architecture. And, to a large extent vice versa. Aadhaar is a surveillance project masquerading as a development intervention because it uses biometrics. There is a big difference between the government identifying you and you identifying yourself to the government. Before UID, it was much more difficult for the government to identify you without your knowledge and conscious cooperation. Tomorrow, using high-resolution cameras and the power of big data, the government will be able to remotely identify those participating in a public protest. There will be no more anonymity in the crowd. I am not saying that law-enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies should not use these powerful technologies to ensure national security, uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights. I am only saying that this type of surveillance technology is inappropriate for everyday interactions between the citizen and the state.

Some software engineers believe that there are technical fixes for these concerns; they point to the consent layer in the India stack developed through a public-private partnership with the UIDAI. But this is exactly what Evgeny Morozov has dubbed “technological solutionism”—fundamental flaws like this cannot be fixed by legal or technical band-aid. If you were to ask the UIDAI how do you ensure that the data do not get stolen between the enrolment machine and the CIDR, the response would be, we use state-of-the-art cryptography. If cryptography is good enough for the UIDAI why is it not good enough for citizens? That is because if citizens use cryptography [on smart cards] to identify themselves to the state, the state will need their conscious cooperation each time. That provides the feature that is required for better governance without the surveillance bonus. If you really must use biometrics, it could be stored on the smart card after being digitally signed by the enrolment officer. If there is ever a doubt whether the person has stolen the smart card, a special machine can be used to read the biometrics off the card and check that against the person. This way the power of biometrics would be leveraged without any of the accompanying harms.

Zero. This time, for the utility of biometrics as a password or authentication factor. There are two principal reasons for which the Act should have prohibited the use of biometrics for authentication. First, biometric authentication factors are irrevocable unlike passwords, PINs, digital signatures, etc. Once a biometric authentication factor has been compromised, there is no way to change it. The security of a system secured by biometrics is permanently compromised. Second, our biometrics is so easy to steal; we leave our fingerprints everywhere.

Also, if I upload my biometric data onto the Internet, I can then plausibly deny all transactions against my name in the CIDR. In order to prevent me from doing that, the government will have to invest in CCTV cameras [with large storage] as they do for passport-control borders and as banks do at ATMs. If you anyway have to invest in CCTV cameras, then you might as well stick with digital signatures on smart cards as the previous National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government proposed the SCOSTA (Smart Card Operating System Standard for Transport Application) standard for the MNIC (Multipurpose National ID Card). Leveraging smart card standards like EMV will ensure harnessing greater network effects thanks to the global financial infrastructure of banks. These network effects will drive down the cost of equipment and afford Indians greater global mobility. And most importantly when a digital signature is compromised the user can be issued a new smart card. As Rufo Guerreschi, executive director of Open Media Cluster, puts it, “World leaders and IT experts should realise that citizen freedoms and states’ ability to pursue suspects are not an ‘either or’ but a ‘both or neither’.”

Near zero. We now move biometrics as the identification factor. The rate of potential duplicates or “False Positive Identification Rate” which according to the UIDAI is only 0.057 per cent. Which according to them will result in only “570 resident enrolments will be falsely identified as duplicate for every one million enrolments.” However, according to an article published in Economic & Political Weekly by my colleague at the Centre for Internet and Society, Hans Verghese Mathews, this will result in one out of every 146 people being rejected during enrolment when total enrolment reaches one billion people. In its rebuttal, the UIDAI disputes the conclusion but offers no alternative extrapolation or mathematical assumptions. “Without getting too deep into the mathematics” it offers an account of “a manual adjudication process to rectify the biometric identification errors”.

This manual adjudication determines whether you exist and has none of the elements of natural justice such as notice to the affected party and opportunity to be heard. Elimination of ghosts is impossible if only machines and unaccountable humans perform this adjudication. This is because there is zero skin in the game. There are free tools available on the Internet such as SFinGe (Synthetic Fingerprint Generator) which allow you to create fake biometrics. The USB cables on the UIDAI-approved enrolment setup can be intercepted using generic hardware that can be bought online. With a little bit of clever programming, countless number of ghosts can be created which will easily clear the manual adjudication process that the UIDAI claims will ensure that “no one is denied an Aadhaar number because of a biometric false positive”.

Near zero. This time for surveillance, which I believe should be used like salt in cooking. Essential in small quantities but counterproductive even if slightly in excess. There is a popular misconception that privacy researchers such as myself are opposed to surveillance. In reality, I am all for surveillance. I am totally convinced that surveillance is good anti-corruption technology.

But I also want good returns on investment for my surveillance tax rupee. According to Julian Assange, transparency requirements should be directly proportionate to power; in other words, the powerful should be subject to more surveillance. And conversely, I add, privacy protections must be inversely proportionate to power—or again, in other words, the poor should be spared from intrusions that do not serve the public interest. The UIDAI makes the exact opposite design assumption; it assumes that the poor are responsible for corruption and that technology will eliminate small-ticket or retail corruption. But we all know that politicians and bureaucrats are responsible for most of large-ticket corruption.

Why does not the UIDAI first assign UID numbers to all politicians and bureaucrats? Then using digital signatures why do not we ensure that we have a public non-repudiable audit trail wherein everyone can track the flow of benefits, subsidies and services from New Delhi to the panchayat office or local corporation office? That will eliminate big-ticket or wholesale corruption. In other words, since most of Aadhaar’s surveillance is targeted at the bottom of the pyramid, there will be limited bang for the buck. Surveillance is the need of the hour; we need more CCTVs with microphones turned on in government offices than biometric devices in slums.

Instantiation technology

One. And zero. In the contemporary binary and digital age, we have lost faith in the old gods. Science and its instantiation technology have become the new gods. The cult of technology is intolerant to blasphemy. For example, Shekhar Gupta recently tweeted saying that part of the opposition to Aadhaar was because “left-libs detest science/tech”. Technology as ideology is based on some fundamental articles of faith: one, new technology is better than old technology; two, expensive technology is better than cheap technology; three, complex technology is better than simple technology; and four, all technology is empowering or at the very least neutral. Unfortunately, there is no basis in science for any of these articles of faith.

Let me use a simple story to illustrate this. I was fortunate to serve as a member of a committee that the Department of Biotechnology established to finalise the Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2015, which was to be introduced in Parliament in the last monsoon session. Aside: the language of the Act also has room for the database to expand into a national DNA database circumventing 10 years of debate around the controversial DNA Profiling Bill, 2015. The first version of this Bill that I read in January 2013 said that DNA profiling was a “powerful technology that makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another … without any doubt”. In other words, to quote K.P.C. Gandhi, a scientist from Truth Labs, “I can vouch for the scientific infallibility of using DNA profiling for carrying out justice.”

Unfortunately, though, the infallible science is conducted by fallible humans. During one of the meetings, a scientist described the process of generating a biometric profile. The first step after the laboratory technician generated the profile was to compare the generated profile with her or his own profile because during the process of loading the machine with the DNA sample, some of the laboratory technician’s DNA could have contaminated the sample. This error would not be a possibility in much older, cheaper and rudimentary biometric technology for example, photography. A photographer developing a photograph in a darkroom does not have to ensure that his or her own image has not accidentally ended up on the negative. But the UIDAI is filled with die-hard techno-utopians; if you tell them that fingerprints will not work for those who are engaged in manual labour, they will say then we will use iris-based biometrics. But again, complex technologies are more fragile and often come with increased risks. They may provide greater performance and features, but sometimes they are easier to circumvent. A gummy finger to fool a biometric scanner can be produced using glue and a candle, but to fake a passport takes a lot of sophisticated technology. Therefore, it is important for us as a nation to give up our unquestioning faith in technology and start to debate the exact technological configurations of surveillance technology for different contexts and purposes.

One. This time representing a monopoly. Prior to the UID project, nobody got paid when citizens identified themselves to the state. While the Act says that the UIDAI will get paid, it does not specify how much. Sooner or later, this cost of identification will be passed on to the citizens and residents. There will be a consumer-service provider relationship established between the citizen and the state when it comes to identification. The UIDAI will become the monopoly provider of identification and authentication services in India which is trusted by the government. That sounds like a centrally planned communist state to me. Should not the right-wing oppose the Act because it prevents the free market from working? Should not the free market pick the best technology and business model for identification and authentication? Will not that drive the cost of identification and authentication down and ensure higher quality of service for citizens and residents?

Competing providers

Competing providers can also publish transparency reports regarding their compliance with data requests from law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, and if this is important to consumers they will be punished by the market. The government can use mechanisms such as permanent and temporary bans and price regulation as disincentives for the creation of ghosts. There will be a clear financial incentive to keep the database clean. Just like the government established a regulatory framework for digital certificates in the Information Technology Act allowing for e-commerce and e-governance. Ideally, the Aadhaar Bill should have done something similar and established an ecosystem for multiple actors to provide services in this two-sided market. For it is impossible for a “small government” to have the expertise and experience to run one of the world’s largest database of biometric and transaction records securely for perpetuity.

To conclude, I support the use of biometrics. I support government use of identification and authentication technology. I support the use of ID numbers in government databases. I support targeted surveillance to reduce corruption and protect national security. But I believe all these must be put in place with care and thought so that we do not end up sacrificing our constitutional rights or compromising the security of our nation state. Unfortunately, the Aadhaar project’s technological design and architecture is an unmitigated disaster and no amount of legal fixes in the Act will make it any better. Our children will pay a heavy price for our folly in the years to come. To quote the security guru Bruce Schneier, “Data is a toxic asset. We need to start thinking about it as such, and treat it as we would any other source of toxicity. To do anything else is to risk our security and privacy.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/frontline-april-15-2016-sunil-abraham-surveillance-project

Surveillance in India: Policy and Practice

praskrishna — 2017-03-15T01:05:07Z

The National Institute of Public Finance and Policy organized a brainstorming session on net neutrality on February 8, 2017 and a public seminar on surveillance in India the following day on February 9, 2017 in New Delhi. Pranesh Prakash gave a talk.

Pranesh presented a narrative of the current state of surveillance law, our knowledge of current surveillance practices (including noting where programmes like Natgrid, CMS, etc. fit in), and charted a rough map of reforms needed and outstanding policy research questions.

Pranesh Prakash

Pranesh Prakash is a Policy Director at - and was part of the founding team of - the Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit organisation that engages in research and policy advocacy. He is also the Legal Lead at Creative Commons India and an Affiliated Fellow at the Yale Law School's Information Society Project, and has been on the Executive Committee of the NCUC at ICANN. In 2014, he was selected by Forbes India for its inaugural "30 under 30" list of young achievers, and in 2012 he was recognized as an Internet Freedom Fellow by the U.S. government.

His research interests converge at the intersections of technology, culture, economics, law, and justice. His current work focuses on interrogating, promoting, and engaging with policymakers on the areas of access to knowledge (primarily copyright reform), 'openness' (including open government data, open standards, free/libre/open source software, and open access), freedom of expression, privacy, digital security, and Internet governance. He is a prominent voice on these issues, with the newspaper Mint calling him “one of the clearest thinkers in this area”, and his research having been quoted in the Indian parliament. He regularly speaks at national and international conferences on these topics. He has a degree in arts and law from the National Law School in Bangalore, and while there he helped found the Indian Journal of Law and Technology, and was part of its editorial board for two years.

Click here to see the agenda for the brainstorming session on net neutrality.

Video

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/surveillance-in-india-policy-and-practice

Surveillance Enabling Identity Systems in Africa: Tracing the Fingerprints of Aadhaar

Shruti Trikanad and Vrinda Bhandari — 2022-08-09T08:17:32Z

Biometric identity systems are being introduced around the world with a focus on promoting human development and social and economic inclusion, rather than previous goals of security. As a result, these systems being encouraged in developing countries, particularly in Africa and Asia, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

In this report, we identify the different external actors that influencing this “developmental” agenda. These range from philanthropic organisations, private companies, and technology vendors, to state and international institutions. Most notable among these is the World Bank, whose influence we investigated in the form of case studies of Nigeria and Kenya. We also explored the role played by the “success” of the Aadhaar programme in India on these new ID systems. A key characteristic of the growing “digital identity for development” trend is the consolidation of different databases that record beneficiary data for government programmes into one unified platform, accessed by a unique biometric ID. This “Aadhaar model” has emerged as a default model to be adopted in developing countries, with little concern for the risks it introduces. Read and download the full report here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surveillance-enabling-identity-systems-in-africa-tracing-the-fingerprints-of-aadhaar

Surveillance Camp: Privatized State Surveillance

praskrishna — 2013-01-29T06:51:39Z

This is the second in a series of posts mapping global surveillance challenges discussed at EFF’s Surveillance Camp in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Katitza Rodriguez's blog post was published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on their website on January 28, 2013. Elonnai Hickok is quoted.

In December 2012, EFF organized a Surveillance and Human Rights Camp in Brazil that brought together the expertise of a diverse group of people concerned about state electronic surveillance in Latin American and other countries. Among other concerns, participants spotlighted the many ways in which the private sector is increasingly playing a role in state surveillance. Here are a few examples:

Voluntary Agreements Between Law Enforcement and Private Companies

Often law enforcement agencies will approach companies asking for voluntary disclosure of information for investigative purposes. Those requests may look and sound more like threats, with a great deal of moral pressure applied on the companies.

This voluntary assistance remains out of the public eye and shrouded in secrecy, as notification of state access is never given to the individual concerned, is not codified in law, and is not clearly disclosed in the company's terms of service or user agreement. Currently there is minimal, if any, oversight over such voluntary cooperation, so the scope of assistance provided is not well-documented.

Canada

Canadian ISPs have jointly decided to provide identifying data about Canadian Internet users to law enforcement in child exploitation investigations. In fact, several Canadian ISPs have developed a formal protocol in conjunction with various law enforcement agencies to be used when those authorities are seeking identification information associated with a given IP address at a specific date and time. Since the adoption of this protocol, some ISPs have expanded their information sharing practices to cover customer identification data in other contexts, such as online harassment cases.

Law Enforcement Approaching Service Providers Without Legally-Required Authorization

A growing concern is the number of law enforcement officers skirting the law by asking service providers to simply fork over information without any sort of search warrant. Even when legal procedures, such as a search warrant, exist, police increasingly request information without obtaining a legal authorization. Nevertheless, they often expect full compliance from service providers.

Chile

In 2008, a Chilean website called Huelga.cl (“strike” in English) was approached by the Cyber Crime Section of the Chilean Police. The site is an online space for coordinating union actions. The agency demanded that the webmaster hand over data related to pseudonymous user accounts, such as IP addresses, records of previous connections, real names, and physical addresses. The targeted users had left comments on a website about an ongoing strike.

In this case, because police did not have a court order to back up the request for information, Huelga.cl took a stand by resisting police pressure and refusing to hand over the data without a fight. For legal assistance, they turned to Derechos Digitales, a Chilean online human rights nonprofit organization, and managed to resist the request.

In another case, the Regional Director of the Chilean Department of Labor, the agency responsible for ensuring the enforcement of labor laws, sent a letter to Huelga.cl simply demanding the removal of “inappropriate content” from their website along with the disclosure of user information, but it was only for administrative purposes as opposed to serious criminal investigations. Huegal.cl again refused to comply and instead, made the director’s demands public.

It is not always the case that service providers can resist extralegal government requests, find legal advice or have enough economic resources to fight against those demands as Huelga.cl did. Huelga.cl should be praised for speaking up and managing to make the request from law enforcement public.

Governments Pressure Private Sector

Governments frequently impose heavy fines for non-compliance with their requests for data access. This form of coercion acts as a mechanism of enforcement over service providers and can raise serious concerns for free expression. The service provider is left with little incentive or option to resist illegitimate requests from the government when they are threatened with heavy fines.

Brazil

In 2012, a judge from northern Brazil froze Google's accounts and imposed a fine on the company for refusing to remove three anonymous blogs or reveal contact details of the bloggers. The content of the blogs state d the mayor of Varzea Alegre of corruption and embezzlement.

While some companies might be able to withstand governmental pressure, alarms were raised that this won’t be the case for smaller companies that lack resources and influence. This is particularly true in contexts where heavy fines for noncompliance are written into legislation, and companies are not given legal avenues to appeal or fight the fine.

Foreign Governments Access To Individuals’ Data in the Cloud

Governments are increasingly seeking to negotiate access or interceptation capabilities to user data with companies that do not lie within their jurisdictions. This form of access is complicated because it is not always clear which country’s laws apply or to what extent. Because of the complex nature of these requests, governments often look for "easy" solutions that call for voluntary disclosure of information or simply allow full access to the user data.

For example, government officials in India have been pushing for real time interception capabilities for all BlackBerry services. In response to the demands from the Indian Government, after a number of unsatisfactory proposals, in 2012 RIM set up a NOC in Mumbai, providing security agencies with access to BlackBerry Messenger services, and created a solution for access to Blackberry Internet Services. In addition to asking RIM for real time access to communications, the Government of India had required Service Providers in India to adopt the solution provided by RIM by end of 2012 or risk being shut down.

According to Elonnai Hickok from the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India, the discussions between RIM and the Indian Government is just one example of how governments are trying to negotiate their interests in light of the challenges posed by communications stored in the cloud and in multiple jurisdictions.

While the Internet is technically borderless, in reality, state actors impose their sovereignty onto online environments with increasing frequency. The exercise of sovereignty over shared spaces can subject individuals to the laws of another country without any awareness on their part that this has happened. This in effect transforms the surveillance efforts of one country into privacy risks for all the world’s citizens.

Conclusion

State agencies and law enforcement are increasingly outsourcing investigations to private companies who are not under the same sort of judicial oversight as official law enforcement entities would be. The increasingly close and non-transparent connection between the private sector and law enforcement needs to be addressed, as it poses a risk to the rights and freedoms of the individual. Of major concern to all Camp participants was the notion that private companies are routinely complying with the requests of law enforcement in the absence of due process. We encourage further research and documentation of this phenomenon. To highlight on this issue, we will be blogging next about the privatization of public security in Latin America.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/electronic-frontier-foundation-january-28-2013-katitza-rodriguez-surveillance-camp-privatized-state-surveillance

Surveillance Camp IV: Disproportionate State Surveillance - A Violation of Privacy

elonnai — 2013-02-19T12:37:09Z

This is the fourth in a series of posts mapping global surveillance challenges discussed at EFF's State Surveillance and Human Rights Camp in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This article has been co-written with Elonnai Hickok — Centre for Internet and Society India, and a speaker at EFF's Camp.

This article by Katitza Rodriguez and Elonnai Hickok was originally published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on February 13, 2013.

States around the world are faced daily with the challenge of protecting their populations from potential and real threats. To detect and respond to them, many governments surveil communication networks, physical movements, and transactional records. Though surveillance by its nature compromises individual privacy, there are exceptional situations where state surveillance is justified. Yet, if state surveillance is unnecessary or overreaching, with weak legal safeguards and a failure to follow due process, it can become disproportionate to the threat—infringing on people's privacy rights.

Internationally, regulations concerning government surveillance of communications vary in approach and effectiveness, often with very weak or nonexistent legal safeguards. Some countries have strong regulations for the surveillance of communications, yet these regulations may be largely ineffective or unenforceable in practice. Other countries have no legal safeguards or legal standards differing vastly according to the type of communication data targeted. This is why, EFF organized at the end of last year a State Surveillance and Human Rights Camp in Brazil to build upon this discussion and focused on how states are facilitating unnecessary and disproportionate surveillance of communications in ways that lead to privacy violations.

State-Mandated Identity Verification

In 2012 the Constitutional Court in South Korea declared that country's "real-name identification system" unconstitutional. The system had mandated that any online portal with more than 100,000 daily users had to verify the identity of their users.[1]This meant that the individual has to provide their real name before posting comments online. The legal challenge to this system was raised by People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)'s Public Law Center and Korean Progressive Network—Jinbonet among others.

Korea University professor Kyung-shin Park, Chair of PSPD's Law Center told EFF that portals and phone companies would disclose identifying information about six million users annually—in a country of only 50 million people. The South Korean Government was using perceived online abuses as a convenient excuse to discourage political criticism, professor Park told EFF:

The user information shared with the police most commonly has been used by the government to monitor the anti-governmental sentiments of ordinary people. All this has gone on because the government, the legislature, and civil society have not clearly understood the privacy implications of turning over identifying information of individuals.

The decision by the South Korean Constitutional Court to declare the "real identification system" unconstitutional was a win for user privacy and anonymity because it clearly showed that blanket mandates for the disclosure of identifying information, and the subsequent sharing of that data without judicial authorization, are a disproportionate measure that violates the rights of individuals.[2]

States Restrict Encryption and Demand Backdoors

Some States are seeking to block, ban, or discourage the use of strong encryption and other privacy enhancing tools by requiring assistance in decrypting information. In India service providers are required to ensure that bulk encryption is not deployed. Additionally, no individual or entity can employ encryption with a key longer than 40 bits. If the encryption equipments is higher than this limit, the individual or entity will need prior written permission from the Department of Telecommunications and must deposit the decryption keys with the Department.[3]The limitation on encryption in India means that technically any encrypted material over 40 bits would be accessible by the State. Ironically, the Reserve Bank of India issued security recommendations that banks should use strong encryption as higher as 128-bit for securing browser.[4]In the United States, under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, telecommunication carriers are required to provide decryption assistance only if they already possess the keys (and in many communications system designs, there's no reason carriers should need to possess the keys at all). In 2011, the US Government proposed a bill that would place new restrictions on domestic development or use of cryptography, privacy software, and encryption features on devices. The bill has not been adopted.

Allowing only low levels of encryption and requiring service providers to assist in the decryption of communications, facilitates surveillance by enabling States easier access to data and preventing individuals from using crypto tools to protect their personal communications.

States Establish Blanket Interception Facilities

In Colombia, telecommunications network and service providers carrying out business within the national territory must implement and ensure that interception facilities are available at all times to state agencies as prescribed by law. This is to enable authorized state agencies to intercept communications at any point of time. In addition to providing interception facilities, service providers must also retain subscriber data for a period of five years, and provide information such as subscriber identity, invoicing address, type of connection on request, and geographic location of terminals when requested.

Though Colombia has put in place regulations for the surveillance of communications, these regulations allow for broad surveillance and do not afford the individual clear rights in challenging the same.

Conclusion

The examples above demonstrate that, although state surveillance of communications can be justified in exceptional instances, it leads to the violation of individual privacy when implemented without adequate legal safeguards. Clearly there is a need for international principles articulating critical and necessary components of due process for the surveillance of communications. Those strong legal safeguards are necessary not only in countries that don't have laws in place, but also in countries where laws are lacking and fail to adequately protect privacy. Last year, EFF organized the State Surveillance and Human Rights Camp to discuss a set of International Principles on State Surveillance of Communications, a global effort led by EFF and Privacy International, to define, articulate, and promote legal standards to protect individual privacy when the state carries out surveillance of communications.

[1].Constitutional Court's Decision 2010 Hunma 47, 252 (consolidated) announced August 28, 2012.

[2].The illegality of this practice was proved by a High Court decision handed down 2 months after the Constitutional Court's decision in August 2012. Seoul Appellate Court 2011 Na 19012, Judgment Announced October 18, 2012. This case was prepared and followed singularly by PSPD Public Interest Law Center.

[3].License Agreement for Provision of Internet Services Section 2.2 (vii)

[4].Reserve Bank of India. Internet Banking Guidelines. Section (f (2)).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/eff-feb-13-2013-katitza-rodriguez-and-elonnai-hickok-surveillance-camp-iv-disproportionate-state-surveillance-a-violation-of-privacy

Surveillance and the Indian Constitution - Part 3: The Public/Private Distinction and the Supreme Court’s Wrong Turn

pranesh — 2014-03-06T23:02:45Z

After its decision in Gobind, the Supreme Court's privacy floodgates opened; a series of claims involving private parties came before its docket, and the resulting jurisprudence ended up creating confusion between state-individual surveillance, and individual-individual surveillance.

Gautam Bhatia's blog post was originally published on Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog

We have seen that Gobind essentially crystallized a constitutional right to privacy as an aspect of personal liberty, to be infringed only by a narrowly-tailored law that served a compelling state interest. After the landmark decision in Gobind, Malak Singh v State of P&H was the next targeted-surveillance history-sheeter case to come before the Supreme Court. In that case, Rule 23 of the Punjab Police Rules was at issue. Its vires was not disputed, so the question was a direct matter of constitutionality. An order of surveillance was challenged by two individuals, on the ground that there were no reasonable bases for suspecting them of being repeat criminals, and that their inclusion in the surveillance register was politically motivated. After holding that entry into a surveillance sheet was a purely administrative measure, and thus required no prior hearing (audi alteram partem), the Court then embarked upon a lengthy disquisition about the scope and limitations of surveillance, which deserves to be reproduced in full:

“But all this does not mean that the police have a licence to enter the names of whoever they like (dislike?) in the surveillance register; nor can the surveillance be such as to squeeze the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all citizens or to obstruct the free exercise and enjoyment of those freedoms; nor can the surveillance so intrude as to offend the dignity of the individual. Surveillance of persons who do not fall within the categories mentioned in Rule 23.4 or for reasons unconnected with the prevention of crime, or excessive surveillance falling beyond the limits prescribed by the rules, will entitle a citizen to the Court’s protection which the court will not hesitate to give. The very rules which prescribe the conditions for making entries in the surveillance register and the mode of surveillance appear to recognise the caution and care with which the police officers are required to proceed. The note following R. 23.4 is instructive. It enjoins a duty upon the police officer to construe the rule strictly and confine the entries in the surveillance register to the class of persons mentioned in the rule. Similarly R.23.7 demands that there should be no illegal interference in the guise of surveillance. Surveillance, therefore, has to be unobstrusive and within bounds. Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the surveillance register. They must be proclaimed offenders, previous convicts, or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not may be entered. It is only in the case of this category of persons that there may be occasion for abuse of the power of the police officer to make entries in the surveillance register. But, here, the entry can only be made by the order of the Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority under Rule 23.5. Further it is necessary that the Superintendent of Police must entertain a reasonable belief that persons whose names are to be entered in Part II are habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property. While it may not be necessary to supply the grounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered in the surveillance register it may become necessary in some cases to satisfy the Court when an entry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief. In fact in the present case we sent for the relevant records and we have satisfied ourselves that there were sufficient grounds for the Superintendent of Police to entertain a reasonable belief. In the result we reject both the appeals subject to our observations regarding the mode of surveillance. There is no order as to costs.”

Three things emerge from this holding: first, the Court follows Gobind in locating the right to privacy within the philosophical concept of individual dignity, found in Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty. Secondly, it follows Kharak Singh, Malkani and Gobind in insisting that the surveillance be targeted, limited to fulfilling the government’s crime-prevention objectives, and be limited – not even to suspected criminals, but – repeat offenders or serious criminals. And thirdly, it leaves open a role for the Court – that is, judicial review – in examining the grounds of surveillance, if challenged in a particular case.

After Malak Singh, there is another period of quiet. LIC v Manubhai D Shah, in 1993, attributed – wrongly – to Indian Express Newspapers the proposition that Article 19(1)(a)’s free expression right included privacy of communications (Indian Express itself had cited a UN Report without incorporating it into its holding).

Soon afterwards, R. Rajagopal v State of TN involved the question of the publication of a convicted criminal’s autobiography by a publishing house; Auto Shankar, the convict in question, had supposedly withdrawn his consent after agreeing to the book’s publication, but the publishing house was determined to go ahead with it. Technically, this wasn’t an Article 21 case: so much is made clear by the very manner in which the Court frames its issues: the question is whether a citizen of the country can prevent another person from writing his biography, or life story. (Paragraph 8) The Court itself made things clear when it held that the right of privacy has two aspects: the tortious aspect, which provides damages for a breach of individual privacy; and the constitutional aspect, which protects privacy against unlawful governmental intrusion. (Paragraph 9) Having made this distinction, the Court went on to cite a number of American cases that were precisely about the right to privacy against governmental intrusion, and therefore – ideally – irrelevant to the present case (Paras 13 – 16); and then, without quite explaining how it was using these cases – or whether they were relevant at all, it switched to examining the law of defamation (Para 17 onwards). It would be safe to conclude, therefore, in light of the clear distinctions that it made, the Court was concerned in R. Rajagopal about an action between private parties, and therefore, privacy in the context of tort law. It’s confusing observations, however, were to have rather unfortunate effects, as we shall see.

We now come to a series of curious cases involving privacy and medical law. In Mr X v Hospital Z, the question arose whether a Hospital that – in the context of a planned marriage – had disclosed the appellant’s HIV+ status, leading to his social ostracism – was in breach of his right to privacy. The Court cited Rajagopal, but unfortunately failed to understand it, and turned the question into one of the constitutional right to privacy, and not the private right. Why the Court turned an issue between two private parties – adequately covered by the tort of breach of confidentiality – into an Article 21 issue is anybody’s guess. Surely Article 21 – the right to life and personal liberty – is not horizontally applicable, because if it was, we might as well scrap the entire Indian Penal Code, which deals with exactly these kinds of issues – individuals violating each others’ rights to life and personal liberty. Nonetheless, the Court cited Kharak Singh, Gobind and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, further muddying the waters, because Article 8 – in contrast to American law – embodies a proportionality test for determining whether there has been an impermissible infringement of privacy. The Court then came up with the following observation:

“Where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, as in the instant case, namely, the appellant’s right to privacy as part of right to life and Ms. Akali’s right to lead a healthy life which is her Fundamental Right under Article 21, the RIGHT which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court, for the reason that moral considerations cannot be kept at bay.”

With respect, this is utterly bizarre. If there is a clash of two rights, then that clash must be resolved by referring to the Constitution, and not to the Court’s opinion of what an amorphous, elastic, malleable, many-sizes-fit “public morality” says. The mischief caused by this decision, however, was replicated in Sharda v Dharmpal, decided by the Court in 2003. In that case, the question was whether the Court could require a party who had been accused of unsoundness of mind (as a ground for divorce under the wonderfully progressive Hindu Marriage Act) to undergo a medical examination – and draw an adverse inference if she refused. Again, whether this was a case in which Article 21 ought to be invoked is doubtful; at least, it is arguable, since it was the Court making the order. Predictably, the Court cited from Mr X v Hospital Z extensively. It cited Gobind (compelling State interest) and the ECHR (proportionality). It cited a series of cases involving custody of children, where various Courts had used a “balancing test” to determine whether the best interests of the child overrode the privacy interest exemplified by the client-patient privilege. It applied this balancing test to the case at hand by balancing the “right” of the petitioner to obtain a divorce for the spouse’s unsoundness of mind under the HMA, vis-à-vis the Respondent’s right to privacy.

In light of the above analysis, it is submitted that although the outcome in Mr X v Hospital Z and Sharda v Dharmpal might well be correct, the Supreme Court has misread what R. Rajagopal actually held, and its reasoning is deeply flawed. Neither of these cases are Article 21 cases: they are private tort cases between private parties, and ought to be analysed under private law, as Rajagopal itself was careful to point out. In private law, also, the balancing test makes perfect sense: there are a series of interests at stake, as the Court rightly understood, such as certain rights arising out of marriage, all of a private nature. In any event, whatever one might make of these judgments, one thing is clear: they are both logically and legally irrelevant to the Kharak Singh line of cases that we have been discussing, which are to do with the Article 21 right to privacy against the State.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surveillance-and-the-indian-consitution-part-3

Surveillance and the Indian Constitution - Part 2: Gobind and the Compelling State Interest Test

pranesh — 2014-01-27T18:03:38Z

Gautam Bhatia analyses the first case in which the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to privacy, Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and argues that the holding in that case adopted the three-pronged American test of strict scrutiny, compelling State interest, and narrow tailoring in its approach to privacy violations.

After its judgment in Kharak Singh, the Court was not concerned with the privacy question for a while. The next case that dealt – peripherally – with the issue came eleven years later. In R.M. Malkani v State of Maharashtra, the Court held that attaching a recording device to a person’s telephone did not violate S. 25 of the Telegraph Act, because

"where a person talking on the telephone allows another person to record it or to hear it, it can-not be said that the other person who is allowed to do so is damaging, removing, tampering, touching machinery battery line or post for intercepting or acquainting himself with the contents of any message. There was no element of coercion or compulsion in attaching the tape recorder to the telephone."

Although this case was primarily about the admissibility of evidence, the Court also took time out to consider – and reject – a privacy-based Article 21 argument, holding that:

"Article 21 was invoked by submitting that the privacy of the appellant’s conversation was invaded. Article 21 contemplates procedure established by law with regard to deprivation of life or personal liberty. The telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen will be protected by Courts against wrongful or high handed interference by tapping the conversation. The protection is not for the guilty citizen against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent corruption of public servants. It must not be understood that the Courts will tolerate safeguards for the protection of the citizen to be imperiled by permitting the police to proceed by unlawful or irregular methods."

Apart from the fact that it joined Kharak Singh in refusing to expressly find a privacy right within the contours of Article 21, there is something else that unites Kharak Singh and R.M. Malkani: they hypothetical in Kharak Singh became a reality in Malkani – what saved the telephone tapping precisely because it was directed at "… a guilty person", with the Court specifically holding that the laws were not for targeting innocent people. Once again, then, the targeted and specific nature of interception became a crucial – and in this case, a decisive – factor. One year later, in another search and seizure case, Pooran Mal v Inspector, the Court cited M.P. Sharma and stuck to its guns, refusing to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into Indian Constitutional law.

It is Gobind v State of MP, decided in 1975, that marks the watershed moment for Indian privacy law in the Constitution. Like Kharak Singh, Gobind also involved domiciliary visits to the house of a history-sheeter. Unlike Kharak Singh, however, in Gobind the Court found that the Regulations did have statutory backing – S. 46(2)(c) of the Police Act, which allowed State Government to make notifications giving effect to the provisions of the Act, one of which was the prevention of commission of offences. The surveillance provisions in the impugned regulations, according to the Court, were indeed for the purpose of preventing offences, since they were specifically aimed at repeat offenders. To that extent, then, the Court found that there existed a valid “law” for the purposes of Articles 19 and 21.

By this time, of course, American constitutional law had moved forward significantly from eleven years ago, when Kharak Singh had been decided. The Court was able to invoke Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade, both of which had found a "privacy" as an "interstitial" or "penumbral" right in the American Constitution – that is, not reducible to any one provision, but implicit in a number of separate provisions taken together. The Court ran together a number of American authorities, referred to Locke and Kant, to dignity, to liberty and to autonomy, and ended by holding, somewhat confusingly:

“the right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing. This catalogue approach to the question is obviously not as instructive as it does not give analytical picture of that distinctive characteristics of the right of privacy. Perhaps, the only suggestion that can be offered as unifying principle underlying the concept has been the assertion that a claimed right must be a fundamental right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty… there are two possible theories for protecting privacy of home. The first is that activities in the home harm others only to the extent that they cause offence resulting from the mere thought that individuals might he engaging in such activities and that such ‘harm’ is not Constitutionally protective by the state. The second is that individuals need a place of sanctuary where they can be free from societal control. The importance of such a sanctuary is that individuals can drop the mask, desist for a while from projecting on the world the image they want to be accepted as themselves, an image that may reflect the values of their peers rather than the realities of their natures… the right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process of case-by-case development."

But if no clear principle emerges out of the Court’s elucidation of the right, it was fairly unambiguous in stressing the importance of the right itself. Interestingly, it grounded the right within the context of the freedom struggle. "Our founding fathers," it observed, "were thoroughly opposed to a Police Raj even as our history of the struggle for freedom has borne eloquent testimony to it." (Para 30) The parallels to the American Fourth Amendment are striking here: in his historical analysis Akhil Amar tells us that the Fourth Amendment was meant precisely to avoid the various abuses of unreasonable searches and seizures that were common in England at the time.

The parallels with the United States become even more pronounced, however, when the Court examined the grounds for limiting the right to privacy. "Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest." "Compelling public interest" is an interesting phrase, for two reasons. First, “public interest” is a ground for fundamental rights restrictions under Article 19 (see, e.g., Article 19(6)), but the text of the Article 19 restrictions do not use – and the Court, in interpreting them, has not held – that the public interest must be “compelling”. This suggests a stricter standard of review for an Article 21 privacy right violation than Article 19 violations. This is buttressed by the fact that in the same paragraph, the Court ended by observing: “even if it be assumed that Article 19(5) [restrictions upon the freedom of movement] does not apply in terms, as the right to privacy of movement cannot be absolute, a law imposing reasonable restriction upon it for compelling interest of State must be upheld as valid.” The Court echoes the language of 19(5), and adds the word “compelling”. This surely cannot be an oversight.

More importantly – the compelling State interest is an American test, used often in equal protection cases and cases of discrimination, where “suspect classes” (such as race) are at issue. Because of the importance of the right at issue, the compelling state interest test goes hand-in-hand with another test: narrow tailoring. Narrow tailoring places a burden upon the State to demonstrate that its restriction is tailored in a manner that infringes the right as narrowest manner that is possible to achieve its goals. The statement of the rule may be found in the American Supreme Court case of Grutter v Bollinger:

"Even in the limited circumstance when drawing racial distinctions is permissible to further a compelling state interest, government is still constrained under equal protection clause in how it may pursue that end: the means chosen to accomplish the government’s asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose."

To take an extremely trivial example that will illustrate the point: the State wants to ban hate speech against Dalits. It passes legislation that bans “all speech that disrespects Dalits.” This is not narrowly tailored, because while all hate speech against Dalits necessarily disrespects them, all speech that disrespects Dalits is not necessarily hate speech. It was possible for the government to pass legislation banning only hate speech against Dalits, one that would have infringed upon free speech more narrowly than the “disrespect law”, and still achieved its goals. The law is not narrowly tailored.

Crucially, then, the Court in Gobind seemed to implicitly accept the narrow-tailoring flip side of the compelling state interest coin. On the constitutionality of the Police Regulations itself, it upheld their constitutionality by reading them narrowly. Here is what the Court said:

“Regulation 855, in our view, empowers surveillance only of persons against whom reasonable materials exist to induce the opinion that they show a determination, to lead a life of crime – crime in this context being confined to such as involve public peace or security only and if they are dangerous security risks. Mere convictions in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperiling safety of society cannot be regarded as warranting surveillance under this Regulation. Similarly, domiciliary visits and picketing by the police should be reduced to the clearest cases of danger to community security and not routine follow-up at the end of a conviction or release from prison or at the whim of a police officer.”

But Regulation 855 did not refer to the gravity of the crime at all. Thus, the Court was able to uphold its constitutionality only by narrowing its scope in a manner that the State’s objective of securing public safety was met in a way that minimally infringed the right to privacy.

Therefore, whether the Gobind bench was aware of it or not, its holding incorporates into Indian constitutional law and the right to privacy, not just the compelling State interest test, but narrow tailoring as well. The implications for the CMS are obvious. Because with narrow tailoring, the State must demonstrate that bulk surveillance of all individuals, whether guilty or innocent, suspected of crimes or not suspected of crimes (whether reasonably or otherwise), possessing a past criminal record or not, speaking to each other of breaking up the government or breaking up a relationship – every bit of data must be collected to achieve the goal of maintaining public security, and that nothing narrower will suffice. Can the State demonstrate this? I do not think it can, but at the very least, it should be made to do so in open Court.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surveillance-and-the-indian-consitution-part-2

Surveillance and the Indian Constitution - Part 1: Foundations

pranesh — 2014-01-23T15:12:30Z

In this insightful seven-part series, Gautam Bhatia looks at surveillance and the right to privacy in India from a constitutional perspective, tracing its genealogy through Supreme Court case law and compares it with the law in the USA.

Note: This was originally posted on the Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy blog.

On previous occasions, we have discussed the ongoing litigation in ACLU v. Clapper in the United States, a challenge to the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk surveillance program. Recall that a short while after the initial Edward Snowden disclosures, The Hindu revealed the extent of domestic surveillance in India, under the aegis of the Central Monitoring System (CMS). The CMS (and what it does) is excellently summarized here. To put thing starkly and briefly:

“With the C.M.S., the government will get centralized access to all communications metadata and content traversing through all telecom networks in India. This means that the government can listen to all your calls, track a mobile phone and its user’s location, read all your text messages, personal e-mails and chat conversations. It can also see all your Google searches, Web site visits, usernames and passwords if your communications aren’t encrypted.”

The CMS is not sanctioned by parliamentary legislation. It also raises serious privacy concerns. In order to understand the constitutional implications, therefore, we need to investigate Indian privacy jurisprudence. In a series of posts, we plan to discuss that.

Privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. It plays no part in the Constituent Assembly Debates. The place of the right – if it exists – must therefore be located within the structure of the Constitution, as fleshed out by judicial decisions. The first case to address the issue was M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, in 1954. In that case, the Court upheld search and seizure in the following terms:

"A power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. When the Constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to Constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a totally different fundamental right. by some process of strained construction."

The right in question was 19(1)(f) – the right to property. Notice here that the Court did not reject a right to privacy altogether – it only rejected it in the context of searches and seizures for documents, the specific prohibition of the American Fourth Amendment (that has no analogue in India). This specific position, however, would not last too long, and was undermined by the very next case to consider this question, Kharak Singh.

In Kharak Singh v. State of UP, the UP Police Regulations conferred surveillance power upon certain “history sheeters” – that is, those charged (though not necessarily convicted) of a crime. These surveillance powers included secret picketing of the suspect’s house, domiciliary visits at night, enquiries into his habits and associations, and reporting and verifying his movements. These were challenged on Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement) and Article 21 (personal liberty) grounds. It is the second ground that particularly concerns us.

As a preliminary matter, we may observe that the Regulations in question were administrative – that is, they did not constitute a “law”, passed by the legislature. This automatically ruled out a 19(2) – 19(6) defence, and a 21 “procedure established by law” defence – which were only applicable when the State made a law. The reason for this is obvious: fundamental rights are extremely important. If one is to limit them, then that judgment must be made by a competent legislature, acting through the proper, deliberative channels of lawmaking – and not by mere administrative or executive action. Consequently – and this is quite apart from the question of administrative/executive competence - if the Police Regulations were found to violate Article 19 or Article 21, that made them ipso facto void, without the exceptions kicking in. (Paragraph 5)

It is also important to note one other thing: as a defence, it was expressly argued by the State that the police action was reasonable and in the interests of maintaining public order precisely because it was “directed only against those who were on proper grounds suspected to be of proved anti-social habits and tendencies and on whom it was necessary to impose some restraints for the protection of society.” The Court agreed, observing that this would have “an overwhelming and even decisive weight in establishing that the classification was rational and that the restrictions were reasonable and designed to preserve public order by suitable preventive action” – if there had been a law in the first place, which there wasn’t. Thus, this issue itself was hypothetical, but what is crucial to note is that the State argued – and the Court endorsed – the basic idea that what makes surveillance reasonable under Article 19 is the very fact that it is targeted – targeted at individuals who are specifically suspected of being a threat to society because of a history of criminality.

Let us now move to the merits. The Court upheld secret picketing on the ground that it could not affect the petitioner’s freedom of movement since it was, well secret – and what you don’t know, apparently, cannot hurt you. What the Court found fault with was the intrusion into the petitioner’s dwelling, and knocking at his door late at night to wake him up. The finding required the Court to interpret the meaning of the term “personal liberty” in Article 21. By contrasting the very specific rights listed in Article 21, the Court held that:

“Is then the word “personal liberty” to be construed as excluding from its purview an invasion on the part of the police of the sanctity of a man’s home and an intrusion into his personal security and his right to sleep which is the normal comfort and a dire necessity for human existence even as an animal? It might not be inappropriate to refer here to the words of the preamble to the Constitution that it is designed to “assure the dignity of the individual” and therefore of those cherished human value as the means of ensuring his full development and evolution. We are referring to these objectives of the framers merely to draw attention to the concepts underlying the constitution which would point to such vital words as “personal liberty” having to be construed in a reasonable manner and to be attributed that these which would promote and achieve those objectives and by no means to stretch the meaning of the phrase to square with any preconceived notions or doctrinaire constitutional theories.” (Paragraph 16)

A few important observations need to be made about this paragraph. The first is that it immediately follows the Court’s examination of the American Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, with their guarantees of “life, liberty and property…” and is, in turn, followed by the Court’s examination of the American Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the protection of a person’s houses, papers, effects etc from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court’s engagement with the Fourth Amendment is ambiguous. It admits that “our Constitution contains no like guarantee…”, but holds that nonetheless “these extracts [from the 1949 case, Wolf v Colorado] would show that an unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man – an ultimate essential of ordered liberty”, thus tying its own holding in some way to the American Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. But here’s the crucial thing: at this point, American Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was propertarian based – that is, the Fourth Amendment was understood to codify – with added protection – the common law of trespass, whereby a man’s property was held sacrosanct, and not open to be trespassed against. Four years later, in 1967, in Katz, the Supreme Court would shift its own jurisprudence, to holding that the Fourth Amendment protected zones where persons had a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, as opposed to simply protecting listed items of property (homes, papers, effects etc). Kharak Singh was handed down before Katz. Yet the quoted paragraph expressly shows that the Court anticipated Katz, and in expressly grounding the Article 21 personal liberty right within the meaning of dignity, utterly rejected the propertarian-tresspass foundations that it might have had. To use a phrase invoked by later Courts – in this proto-privacy case, the Court already set the tone by holding it to attach to persons, not places.

While effectively finding a right to privacy in the Constitution, the Court expressly declined to frame it that way. In examining police action which involved tracking a person’s location, association and movements, the Court upheld it, holding that “the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of a fundamental right guaranteed by Part III.”

The “therefore” is crucial. Although not expressly, the Court virtually holds, in terms, that tracking location, association and movements does violate privacy, and only finds that constitutional because there is no guaranteed right to privacy within the Constitution. Yet.

In his partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion, Subba Rao J. went one further, by holding that the idea of privacy was, in fact, contained within the meaning of Article 21: “it is true our Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.” Privacy he defined as the right to “be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.” On this ground, he held all the surveillance measures unconstitutional.

Justice Subba Rao’s opinion also explored a proto-version of the chilling effect. Placing specific attention upon the word “freely” contained within 19(1)(d)’s guarantee of free movment, Justice Subba Rao went specifically against the majority, and observed:

“The freedom of movement in clause (d) therefore must be a movement in a free country, i.e., in a country where he can do whatever he likes, speak to whomsoever he wants, meet people of his own choice without any apprehension, subject of course to the law of social control. The petitioner under the shadow of surveillance is certainly deprived of this freedom. He can move physically, but he cannot do so freely, for all his activities are watched and noted. The shroud of surveillance cast upon him perforce engender inhibitions in him and he cannot act freely as he would like to do. We would, therefore, hold that the entire Regulation 236 offends also Art. 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.”

This early case, therefore, has all the aspects that plague the CMS today. What to do with administrative action that does not have the sanction of law? What role does targeting play in reasonableness – assuming there is a law? What is the philosophical basis for the implicit right to privacy within the meaning of Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty? And is the chilling effect a valid constitutional concern?

We shall continue with the development of the jurisprudence in the next post.

You can follow Gautam Bhatia on Twitter

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surveillance-and-the-indian-consitution-part-1

Surveillance and Privacy Law Roundtable

praskrishna — 2014-08-25T15:08:33Z

The Centre for Internet and Society, COAI and Vahura invite you to a privacy roundtable at the India International Centre in New Delhi on September 1, 2014.

Download the Invite (PDF, 1207 Kb)

Recent legislative developments regarding privacy law in India
In 2010, the European Union commissioned an assessment of the adequacy of Indian data protection laws in light of the transfer of personal data of European data subjects into India for processing. That assessment made adverse findings on the adequacy and preparedness of Indian privacy law to safeguard personal data. Consequently, in 2011, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) proposed draft privacy legislation called the ‘Right to Privacy Bill, 2011’. The DoPT Bill contained provisions for the regulation of personal data, interception of communications, visual surveillance and direct marketing. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology issued the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 to give effect to section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Justice Shah Group of Experts on Privacy and the National Privacy Principles
Aware of the need for privacy laws to enable economic growth, the Planning Commission constituted a Group of Experts under the chairmanship of Justice Ajit P. Shah to make specific proposals for future Indian privacy law. The Group of Experts submitted its Report to the Planning Commission in October 2012 wherein it proposed the adoption of nine National Privacy Principles. These are the principles of notice, choice and consent, collection limitation, purpose limitation, disclosure of information, security, openness, and accountability. The Report recommended the application of these principles in future privacy law.

Surveillance law in India
The cases of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) and Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) first brought the questions of permissibility and limits of surveillance to the Supreme Court for judicial review. The regime governing the interception of telecommunications is contained in section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The Telegraph Rules were twice amended to give effect to certain procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India (1996). In addition, further subordinate legislation issued to fulfil the provisions of sections 69(2) and 69B(3) of the Information Technology Act permit the interception and monitoring of electronic communications to collect traffic data and to intercept, monitor, and decrypt such communications.

About these roundtable consultations
These roundtable consultations are hosted by the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), COAI and Vahura. They are a series of national roundtables to focus on surveillance regulation and interception of communications in relation to telecom service providers, internet service providers, internet access providers, and internet-based service providers. These roundtables are designed to elicit comments on legal proposals to regulate surveillance. The text of these legal proposals has been drafted at CIS and continues to be modified to reflect the opinions and consensus at each roundtable consultation. The objective of these meetings is gain a stakeholder-based, participatory, and democratic consensus on the future of Indian surveillance and privacy law.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/surveillance-privacy-roundtable

Surat’s Massive Surveillance Network Should Cause Concern, Not Celebration

joe — 2014-09-06T03:05:13Z

The blog post examines the surveillance network of Surat, a city in Gujarat state in India.

The Surveillance System

Surat, a city in the state of Gujarat, has recently unveiled a comprehensive closed-circuit camera surveillance system that spans almost the entire city. This makes Surat the first Indian city to have a modern, real-time CCTV system, with eye-tracking software and night vision cameras, along with intense data analysis capabilities that older systems lack.

Similar systems are planned for cities across India, from Delhi to Punjab, even those that already have older CCTV programs in place. Phase I of the system, which is currently completed, consists of 104 CCTV cameras installed at 23 locations and a 280 square foot video wall at the police control room. The video wall is one of the largest in the country, according to the Times of India.

Narendra Modi, then the Gujarat chief minister, launched the project in January 2013, though the project was original conceptualized by police commissioner Rakesh Asthana, who has cited the CCTV system in Scotland Yard as his inspiration.

Phase II of the surveillance project will involve the installation of 550 cameras at 282 locations, and in the future, police plan to install over 5000 cameras across the city. Though other security systems, like those in Delhi, rely on lines from the state owned service provider MTNL, with limited bandwidth for their CCTV network, the Surat system has its own dedicated cables.

The security system was financed by a unique Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model, where a coalition of businesses, including many manufacturing units and representatives of Surat’s textile industry want to prevent crime. The many jewelers in the city also hoped it would limit thefts. In the model, businesses interested in joining the coalition contribute Rs 25 lakh as a one-time fee and the combined fees along with some public financing go to construct the city-wide system. The chairman of the coalition is always the Commissioner of Surat Police. Members of the coalition not only get a tax break, but also believe they are helping to create a safer city for their industries to thrive.

Arguments for the System

Bomb blasts in Ahmedabad in 2008 led the Gujarat police to consider setting up surveillance systems not just in Ahmedabad, according to Scroll.in, but in many cities including Surat. Terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and at the Delhi High Court in 2011 lent momentum to surveillance efforts, as did international responses to terror, such as the United Kingdom’s intensive surveillance efforts in response to 2005 bombing in London. The UK’s security system has become so comprehensive that Londoners are caught on camera over 300 times a day on average. The UK’s CCTV systems cost over £500 million between 2008 and 2012, and one single crime has been solved in London for every 1,000 cameras each year, according to 2008 Metropolitan Police figures.

However, citizens in London may feel safer in their surveillance state knowing that the Home Office of the United Kingdom regulates how CCTV systems are used to ensure that cameras are being used to protect and not to spy. The UK’s Surveillance Camera Code of Practice outlines a thorough system of safeguards that make CCTV implementation less open to abuse. India currently has no comparable regulation.

The combined government worries of terrorism and business owners desire to prevent crime led to Surat’s unique PPP, ournalist Suarav Datta’s article in Scroll.in continues. Though the Surat Municipal Corporation invested Rs 2 crore, business leaders demonstrated their support for the surveillance system by donating the remaining Rs 10 crore required to build the first phase system. Phase II will cost Rs 21 crore, with the state government investing Rs 3 crore and business groups donating the other Rs 18 crore. This finance model demonstrates both public and private support for the CCTV system.

Why CCTV systems may do more harm than good

Despite hopes that surveillance through CCTV systems may prevent terrorism and crime, evidence suggests that it is not as much of a golden bullet as its proponents believe. In the UK, for example, where surveillance is practice extensively, the number of crimes captured on camera dropped significantly in 2010, because there were so many cameras that combing through all the hours footage was proving to be an exercise in futility for many officers. According to Suaray Datta’s article on Scroll.in, potential offenders in London either dodge cameras or carry out their acts in full view of them, which detracts from the argument that cameras deter crime. Additionally, prosecutors allege that the CCTV systems are of little value in court, because the quality of the footage is so low that it cannot provide conclusive proof of identities.

A 2008 study in San Francisco showed that surveillance cameras produce only a placebo effect–they do not deter crime, they just move it down the block, away from the cameras. In Los Angeles, more dramatically, there was little evidence that CCTV cameras helped detect crime, because in high traffic areas the number of cameras and operators required is so high, and because the city’s system was privately funded, the California Research Bureau’s report noted that it was open to exploitation by private interests pursuing their own goals. Surat’s surveillance efforts are largely privately funded too, a vulnerability that could lead to miscarriages of justice if private security contractors were to gain to security footage.

More evidence of the ineffectiveness of CCTV surveillance comes in the Boston marathon bombing of 2013 and the attack on the Indian parliament in 2001. In the case of the Boston bombing, release of CCTV footage to the general public led to rampant and unproductive speculation about the identity of the bomber, which resulted in innocent spectators being unfairly painted with suspicion.

India’s lack of regulation over CCTV’s also makes Surat’s new system susceptible to misuse. There is currently no strong legislation that protects citizens filmed on CCTV from having their images exploited or used inappropriately. Only police will have access to the recordings, Surat officials say, but the police themselves cannot always be trusted to adequately respect the rights of the citizens they are trying to protect.

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy acknowledges the lack of regulations on CCTV surveillance, and recommends that CCTV footage be legally protected from abuse. However, the Report notes that regulating CCTV surveillance to the standards of the National Privacy Principals they establish earlier in the report may not be possible for a number of reasons. First, it will be difficult to limit the quantity of information collected because the cameras are simply recording video of public spaces, and is unlikely that individuals will be able to access security footage of themselves. However, issues of consent and choice can be addressed by indicating that CCTV surveillance is taking place on entryways to monitored spaces.

Surat is not the first place in India to experiment with mass CCTV surveillance. Goa has mandated surveillance cameras in beach huts to monitor the huts and deter and detect crime. The rollout is slow and ongoing, and some of the penalties the cameras are intended to enforce seem too severe, such as potentially three months in prison for having too many beach chairs. More worryingly, there are still no laws ensuring that the footage will only be used for its proper law-enforcement objectives. Clear oversight is needed in Goa just as it is in Surat. The Privacy Commissioner outlined by the Report of the Group of Experts could be well suited to overseeing the proper administration of CCTV installations, just as the Commissioner would oversee digital surveillance.

Concerns of privacy and civil liberties appear to have flown out the window in Surat, with little public debate. It is unclear that Surat’s surveillance efforts will achieve any of their desired effects, but without needed safeguards they will present an opportunity for abuse. Perhaps CCTV initiatives need to be subjected to a little bit more scrutiny.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surat-massive-surveillance-network-cause-of-concern-not-celebration

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 66A Of IT Act

praskrishna — 2015-03-25T16:43:53Z

In a major boost to freedom of speech online in India, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, reading down a draconian law that was poorly conceived, tragically worded and caused ordinary citizens to be jailed for so much as a comment on Facebook that annoyed just about anyone.

The article by Indrani Basu and Betwa Sharma published in the Huffington Post on March 24, 2015 quotes Sunil Abraham.

In its 122-page judgment, the court struck down the entire section, refusing to heed the government's plea that it will not be misused.

"The apex courts in India have consistently protected the rights of its citizens. And the Supreme Court has once again upheld that great tradition with this decision. There are constitutional exceptions to free speech that exist.

But this judgment will protect against the abuse of this vague and badly drafted law," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society.

The section was passed without discussion in Parliament by the UPA government in 2008, adding an amendment to the original 2002 Act. While Narendra Modi supported the repealing of the Act during his prime ministerial campaign, after the BJP came to power, the government defended the provision, even while admitting it was draconian.

The government argued that the provision was necessary to prevent people from posting inflammatory content offending religious or political sentiments, leading to violence.

"I''m so happy with the decision. They have completely struck down the whole section. This is a victory for the country," said Shreya Singhal, the 24-year-old law student on whose petition the Supreme Court was hearing the case. "I don't have a political agenda — both the Congress government and the BJP have misused the section earlier. Section 66A was a blanket provision which was very vague. There are many IPC sections that could be used in its place."

"No one should fear putting anything up on the internet. It is very important for us to protect this right today," she said.

But there are sections in the Indian Penal Code that can deal with such situations.

And the broad and vague wording of 66A meant that it effectively became a tool that muzzled all speech online.

In 2012, Shaheen Dada, a 21-year old Mumbai girl, posted on Facebook comments about Shivsena leader Bal Thackerey. Annoyed party members went to the cops and Dada was arrested. Her friend Rinu Srinivasan, who had 'liked' the comment on Facebook, was also arrested.

The same year, Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra was arrested for sharing a cartoon poking fun at West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.

Mumbai cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was also arrested under the provision for his cartoons during the Anna Hazare anti-corruption agitation.

Here is what the section said:

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.
Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-indrani-basu-betwa-sharma-march-24-2015-supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act

Supreme Court sets up constitution bench to hear Aadhaar privacy issues

praskrishna — 2017-07-14T10:55:04Z

The Supreme Court ‘s five-judge constitution bench will also decide if the Aadhaar privacy issue should be heard by a larger bench.

The article by Priyanka Mittal was published in Livemint on July 12, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

A five-judge constitution bench will hear arguments on 18-19 July as to whether Indian citizens have the right to privacy, and whether the Aadhaar unique identity project breaches the right.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar on Wednesday set the dates for the hearing by the constitution bench, which will decide whether the issue should be heard by a larger bench.

Should the five-judge bench decide to rule on the case itself and not refer it to a larger bench, it will decide the future of Aadhaar, which has become the backbone of government welfare programmes, the tax administration network and online financial transactions.

This will be based on whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right of Indian citizens.

Privacy rights activists argue that personal data gathered under the Aadhaar programme, aimed at giving a unique 12-digit identity number to every Indian, is vulnerable to abuse. Then attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court in 2015 that Indian citizens don’t have a fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution—an argument he repeated subsequently.

“In the two-day hearing, the court is not going to decide the full issue of privacy,” said Alok Prasanna Kumar, a lawyer and visiting fellow at think tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, explaining how the Constitution bench is likely to proceed. “They are going to take a call on whether, in light of precedents, there is a need to refer the issue to a larger bench. There are past judgements and the court will have to look at the scope of privacy under each to decide the number of judges.”

He added: “If the five-judge bench agrees with the precedents, then it would continue to address the angle of privacy; if not, then it would be referred back to the CJI to constitute a larger bench of nine judges.”

All cases related to Aadhaar, including the right to privacy, will be heard by the constitution bench; the court decided to set up the constitution bench to hear the privacy case in August 2015.

The CJI’s decision came on a plea by advocate Shyam Divan, who has appeared in several cases opposing Aadhaar, and attorney general K.K. Venugopal seeking the speedy creation of a Constitution bench. It came a week after justice J. Chelameswar said that all matters related to Aadhaar should be addressed by a constitution bench.

“I see it as a step in the right direction. Personally, I hope that the privacy issue is heard by a five-judge bench as against a larger bench as that can bring more disagreement,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based research think tank Centre for Internet and Society.

Last month, the Supreme Court court upheld the government’s decision to link Aadhaar with the permanent account number (PAN) for filing of income-tax returns but ruled that non-compliance with the law will carry no retrospective consequences.

Under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, the unique identity number is mandatory only to receive social welfare benefits.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-priyanka-mittal-july-12-2017-supreme-court-sets-up-constitution-bench-to-hear-aadhaar-privacy-issues

Supreme Court provides partial relief for Aadhaar

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T05:01:49Z

In a small but significant win for the government, the Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the use of the Aadhaar number for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, pensions by central and state governments, and the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, in addition to its current use in the public distribution system (PDS) and the distribution of cooking gas and kerosene.

The article by Apurva Vishwanath and Saurabh Kumar was published in Livemint on October 15, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

In an interim order on 11 August, the apex court had restricted the use of Aadhaar, the unique identity number, to the PDS and the distribution of cooking gas and kerosene.

Subsequently, several state governments, government departments and regulatory agencies put up a joint defence seeking a modification of the interim order. They included the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the governments of Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan, and industry body Indian Banks’ Association, along with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the issuer of Aadhaar.

A five-judge constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice H.L Dattu and justices M.Y Eqbal, C. Nagappan, Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy said in an order on Thursday: “We are of the opinion that in para 3 of the interim order, we can include schemes like MGNREGS, pensions by state and central government, Jan Dhan Yojana and Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme along with PDS and LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).”

Para 3 of the 11 August interim order had allowed the voluntary use of Aadhaar only for direct benefit transfer in foodgrain, kerosene and cooking gas schemes.

The court’s interim order threw an element of uncertainty around flagship government programmes such as biometric attendance for government employees; the Jan Dhan Yojana, the Prime Minister’s ambitious financial inclusion initiative; digital certificates, and pension payments.

It also threatened to derail India’s progress towards a cashless economy where payments banks are expected to play an important role.

All of these depend on linking accounts to individuals electronically, and are dependent on the Aadhaar number.

“The government was able to convince the court on the utility of Aadhaar which is critical to provide services to the most vulnerable section of the society,” said a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The apex court, however, did not allow the use of Aadhaar for the e-know-your-customer (e-KYC) specifically, which would have helped banks, including payments banks, to enrol new customers and telecom operators for issuing SIM cards. However, it is noteworthy that while obtaining bank accounts under the Jan Dhan scheme, banks use e-KYC. The clarification that RBI sought from the court, on whether the Aadhaar number can be used as proof of identification to open a bank account, still remains uncertain.

This will affect banks, mutual funds and companies that have won in-principle payments bank licences such as Airtel M Commerce Services Ltd (from the stable of Bharti Airtel Ltd, which had a customer base of 231.6 million as of July) and Vodafone m-pesa Ltd (a part of Vodafone India Ltd, which had a customer base of 185.4 million as of July).

The licensees also include the department of posts, which has 155,015 post offices across the country, of which 139,144 are in rural areas. The sheer reach of these entities is unrivalled. These entities hope to ride on the technology platform to reach customers, and e-KYC is critical to the process.

“The reason why the court has allowed use of Aadhaar for Jan Dhan Yojana and not other banking services is perhaps because the government made a humanitarian argument that the poorest will be able to avail banking services. It is, however, a technologically flawed argument, deeply so,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society.

The bench ordered the Union government to follow all earlier interim orders issued by the Supreme Court starting September 2013. Some of these orders include restrain on sharing of biometrics and keeping Aadhaar voluntary.

As of now, 920 million Indian citizens have been allotted Aadhaar numbers. The interim stay was affecting beneficiaries of the MGNREGS (91.7 million), pensioners (27.1 million) and recipients of scholarships (25.7 million), among others, according to data from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Till now, 187 million bank accounts have been opened under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana.

The apex court made the interim ruling in an ongoing hearing where several pleas related to Aadhaar were clubbed together. Some relate to Aadhaar numbers being made mandatory to enable people to avail of certain government benefits and services. Others deal with the number being a violation of privacy, especially in the absence of any backing regulation or oversight, and yet others deal with possible misuse of the information.

However, the constitution bench had clarified on Wednesday that only pleas seeking clarification and modification of the interim order will be decided, and the issue concerning the right to privacy will be heard subsequently by another constitution bench.

“I am very disappointed with the court’s order. The government claims that Aadhaar is voluntary, but actually it will not be till it is delinked from all government schemes. This way, people who do have Aadhaar are excluded and will have to run from pillar to post to receive benefits if they do not have the number,” said Kamayani Bali Mahabal, a Mumbai-based lawyer, human rights activist and a petitioner in the UIDAI case. She added that the order may increase the incidents of fake Aadhaar numbers as ineligible people choose to gain from all schemes, depriving the poor and aged of real benefits.

The attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi, on Wednesday assured the court that the government has issued advertisements in over 20 languages that Aadhaar is a voluntary scheme.

On 14 Wednesday, PTI reported that a Right to Information application has showed that the UIDAI has identified more than 25,000 duplicate Aadhaar numbers till August.

Mathew Thomas, one of the petitioners challenging the use and validity of the Aadhaar scheme, also expressed disappointment at the court’s ruling today. “Aadhaar is a case of great importance to the billion citizens of India. It is unfortunate that the constitution bench spent only a few hours in hearing the issues,” he said.

The Supreme Court will appoint a larger bench of at least nine judges to hear the privacy issue. The court in 1954, in the case of M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra, ruled that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right recognized by the Constitution. This case was decided by an eight-judge bench of the apex court, and only a bench of equal or larger strength will be able to override that decision.

The Chief Justice in the order on Thursday said that the larger bench, with nine or 11 judges, will be constituted at the earliest to hear the matter on Aadhaar potentially violating privacy and other intervening applications.

The petitioners have argued that UIDAI was approved only by an empowered group of ministers during the United Progressive Alliance tenure and has no statutory authority to collect biometrics of residents. Senior counsel for the petitioners, Shyam Divan, said: “The only law in India which allows the government to collect fingerprints is the Prisoner’s Act of 1920, which is a colonial enactment.”

The UIDAI does not have any legislative backing and was constituted by notification in 2009 by the erstwhile Planning Commission. Divan, however, said that the Planning Commission notification has no effect since the body itself has ceased to exist, and added that the centre is not introducing a legislation empowering the Aadhaar scheme as it realizes the vulnerability of the entire exercise.

The National Identification Authority of India Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 2010.

In 2012, the centre was mulling a privacy law that could be enacted to support the UIDAI scheme and, in connection, the Planning Commission then formed an expert committee on privacy under A.P Shah, a former chairperson of the Law Commission.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-october-15-2015-apurva-vishwanath-saurabh-kumar-supreme-court-provides-partial-relief-for-aadhaar